Court No. - 20
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 5180 of 2010 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Raghubir & Another Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Kakkar,J.
Heard learned A.G.A. for State-appellant and perused the material placed on record.
The instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 14.04.2010 passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Hamirpur in Special Case No.355 of 1995 arising out of Case Crime No.158 of 1994, under Sections 452, 323/34, 504 I.P.C. and 3(1)X S.C./S.T. Act, whereby the accused respondents were acquitted from the charges under Sections 452, 504, 323/34 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(X) of S.C./S.T. Act.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 09.09.1994 when complainant was raising a wall on his door at about 11.30 A.M., the residents of his village, namely, Raghubir Singh, Ratiram came there and called the complainant. On being replied by the complainant that he would be coming after sometimes, they abused him and also beat him with iron rod. The complainant's wife and bhabhi anyhow saved him and took him inside the house, but the accused persons by catching the hair of his wife and bhabhi released him and tried to pulled him outside by beating him. On alarm being raised, his father and uncle Chutkan came there and intervened. Then accused persons went from there saying him with the name of caste and that he was left for this time.
On the basis of incident FIR was lodged and after completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the accused respondents.
Prosecution in support of its case examined P.W.1 Lakhan Singh – complainant, P.W.2 – Smt. Shakuntal, P.W.3 Chutkan and formal witnesses P.W.4 D.r D.V. Singh, P.W.5 Retired S.I. Krishna Bali Mishra and P.W.6 Constable Moharrir Mahesh Kumar.
Perusal of the impugned judgment and order reveals that learned trial court had acquitted the accused respondents on the ground that Smt. Munni – wife and bhabhi of the complainant did not support the prosecution version and stated that Constable of the concerned police station used to come at complainant's house; on resistance of the same by the accused respondents being the residents of the same village that is the reason for lodging the FIR.
It is relevant to mention that in Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2010 SC Page 589 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that :-
"Only in a case when the judgement of the trial court is stated to be perverse i.e. against the weight of evidence, only then conclusion drawn by the trial Court could be re-appraised."
In K. Prakashan Vs. P. K. Surenderan (2008) 1 SCC, 258, Hon'ble Apex Court held that :-
"When two views are possible appellate Court should not reverse the judgement of acquittal merely because the other view was possible when judgement of trial court was neither perverse nor suffered from any illegality or non consideration/misappropriation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified."
In T. Subramanyan Vs. Tamilnadu (2006) 1 SCC, page 401, Hon'ble Apex Court laid down that:-
"Where two views are reasonably possible from the very same evidence prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt."
In light of above legal propositions I have perused the impugned judgment and order of the trial court and do not find any illegality, infirmity and perversity in the same. The view taken by the trial judge is just, proper and does not suffer from any misreading of any material evidence on record.
In view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in the application for leave to appeal which is hereby rejected and consequently the present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.7.2018 Anand Sri./-